15 Fakultätsübergreifend / Sonstige Einrichtung
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/16
Browse
14 results
Search Results
Item Open Access Item Open Access The social amplification of risk : theoretical foundations and empirical applications(1992) Renn, Ortwin; Burns, William J.; Kasperson, Jeanne X.; Kasperson, Roger E.; Slovic, PaulThe article presents the framework of social amplification of risk which integrates the technical assessment and the social experience of risk. Risk perception research has revealed that contextual factors shape individual risk estimations and evaluations. Identification of these factors, such as voluntariness, personal ability to influence risks, familiarity with the hazard, and catastrophic potential, provides useful information about the elements that individuals consider in constructing their interpretation of risks. In addition, analyses of people's heuristics in making inferences have shed some light on how risk information is generalized and evaluated intuitively. These psychological studies fail to explain, however, why individuals attend to certain characteristics of risks and ignore others. Furthermore, in focusing only on the individual as an information processor, these studies exclude from the analysis the social and cultural variance of risk interpretations. The social amplification framework postulates that the social and economic impacts of an adverse event are determined not only by the direct physical consequences of the event, but by the interaction of psychological, cultural, social, and institutional processes that amplify or attenuate public experience of risk and result in secondary impacts.Item Open Access Doing the right think in exporting hazardous technologies(1991) Renn, Ortwin; Brown, Halina S.; White, Allen L.Ethical responsibilities involved in the export of potentially hazardous technologies will be discussed at next year's Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro; here is a report from an international symposium on the subject held in Luxembourg, November 13-16, 1990.Item Open Access Risk perception and risk management : a review. Pt. 2, Lessons for risk management(1990) Renn, OrtwinWhile experts confine the term risk to a combination of magnitude and probability of adverse effects, lay persons associate with risk a variety of criteria, such as voluntariness, possibility of personal control, familiarity, and others. To improve our knowledge about the risk perception process crucial for improving risk management and risk communication. Responsive and rational approaches to risk management should recognize the results of risk perception studies in two ways: First, management has to address the concerns of the affected public and find policy options that reflect these concerns; second, risk reduction or mitigation should be tailored towards the goal of meeting not only the risk minimization objective, but also the implicit criteria of risk characteristics that matter to the public.Item Open Access Die gesellschaftliche Erfahrung und Bewertung von Risiken : eine Ortsbestimmung(1990) Renn, OrtwinFür eine rationale und demokratische Risikopolitik sind alle drei Elemente notwendig: wissenschaftliche Expertise, die Einbeziehung der legitimen Interessen der betroffenen Akteure innerhalb der Arena und die repräsentative Erhebung von sozialer Wünschbarkeit möglicher politischer Optionen durch partizipative Verfahren. Solche Verfahren müssen sich daran messen lassen, wie es ihnen gelingt, das Wissen über negative und positive Auswirkungen sozialen Handelns als Entscheidungsgrundlage zu akzeptieren, ohne es als alleiniges Entscheidungskriterium zu nutzen und gleichzeitig die sozialen und politischen Präferenzen für wünschbare Zukünfte in die Entscheidung zu integrieren, ohne die Realisierungschancen außer Acht zu lassen. Letztlich geht es darum, in einer komplexen Gesellschaft Realität und Möglichkeit(en) aufeinander abzustimmen.Item Open Access Risk communication : towards a rational dialogue with the public(1992) Renn, OrtwinProfessional risk managers and the general public strongly disagree about the seriousness of many risks. Most members of the public are concerned about long-term effects of risks, inequitable siting, lack of personal control, and the pace of technological diffusion into their cultural envi- ronment, whereas professional risk managers focus on the task to minimize the probability of adverse effects caused by a technology or other human activity. To bridge the gap between the professional mandate and the public perception of risk, a dialogue has to be initiated between risk mana- gers, interest groups and representatives of the affected public. This dialogue should serve the function of reconciling conflicts among various groups. A prerequisite for a successful conflict resolution is the willingness of each group to respect the perspective of all the other partici- pating groups and to include their concerns into the decision-making process. This paper reviews the literature on the three main functions of risk communication: message recognition, inducement of attitude and behavioral changes, and resolution of risk-related conflicts. The paper also discusses the structure of the communication process from a descriptive and a normative point of view, and draws on studies about risk perception and communication to develop some guidelines for successful risk communication.Item Open Access Risk perception and risk management : a review. Pt. 1, Risk perception(1990) Renn, OrtwinWhile experts confine the term risk to a combination of magnitude and probability of adverse effects, lay persons associate with risk a variety of criteria, such as voluntariness, possibility of personal control, familiarity, and others. To improve our knowledge about the risk perception process is crucial for improving risk management and risk communication. Responsive and rational approaches to risk management should recognize the results of risk perception studies in two ways: First, management has to address the concerns of the affected public and find policy options that reflect these concerns; second, risk reduction or mitigation should be tailored towards the goal of meeting not only the risk minimization objective, but also the implicit criteria of risk characteristics that matter to the public. If these criteria are in conflict with each other, tradeoffs have to be made and justified through legitimate instruments of conflict resolution. Risk perception studies can help to identify public concerns and shape the arena for conflict resolution. In addition, risk perception studies offer valuable insights for designing and implementing risk communication programs.Item Open Access Die Grenzen überschreiten : die Psychologie des Risikos(1993) Renn, OrtwinDer Mensch segelt über die Weltmeere, besteigt die höchsten Gipfel, fliegt auf den Mond. Gleichzeitig fürchtet er sich vor Naturkatastrophen und atomaren Unfällen. Ein Widerspruch? Mit psychologischer Risikoforschung ann man diesem Paradoxon auf den Grund gehen.Item Open Access Public participation in decision making : a three-step procedure(1993) Renn, Ortwin; Webler, Thomas; Rakel, Horst; Dienel, Peter; Johnson, BrandenThis article introduces a novel model of public participation in political decisions structured in three consecutive steps, the model is based on the view that stakeholders, experts and cItizens should each contribute to the planning effort their particular expertise and experience. Stakeholders are valuable resources for eliciting concerns and developing evaluative criteria since their interests are at stake and they have already made attempts to structure and approach the issue. Experts are necessary to provide the data base and the functional relationships between options and impacts. Citizens are the potential victims and benefactors of proposed planning measures, they are the best judges to evaluate the different options available on the basis of the concerns and impacts revealed through the other two groups. The three-step model has been developed and frequently applied as a planning tool in West Germany. We compare this experience with the model's first application in the United States, and conclude that the three-step procedure offers a limited, but promising future for democratizing policy making in the United States.Item Open Access Public participation in hazard management : the use of citizen panels in the U.S.(1991) Renn, Ortwin; Webler, Thomas; Johnson, Branden B.Americans increasingly question decisions of professional risk managers. This trend is most apparent in the areas of nuclear, hazardous chemical and solid waste management. Professionals and the general public strongly disagree about the seriousness of many risks. The professionals use the expected losses per time unit as the major yardstick to evaluate risks. The public is more concerned about long term effects, inequitable siting, lack of personal control, and the pace of technological diffusion into their cultural environment. Citizens also distrust the ability to monitor and control unintended consequences. Decision making should assure that risk management is both efficient and sensitive to public concerns. This paper discusses a novel way to meet both needs. The model was developed in West Germany and, after some alterations, was first applied in the U.S. in a sludge disposal question in New Jersey.